Hey Dobbe. When I did velvet I went right hand to the edge and it forced me to topout left.. felt like the easiest way at the time. A couple other guys did it going left hand and it's feels more natural to topout via alpine club. Really cool move. Could just be alpine club with really good beta I suppose..

So this is not a problem. Stop posting this kind of junk. If Velvet Hammer is it's own line then all this is is cleaning up the bad beta used to send it the first time. Lots of problems are found to go easier after more people get on them. You don't call it it's own problem so you can say you got an FA.

Ian, Dobbe isn't trying to be a jerk (neither am I in my impending diatribe). He's just trying to stop the newer DL boulders from ending up like the old school routes. Posting every single variation only muddies up the database and distracts people from the original (and best) boulder problems.

Additionally, putting up "new" lines that specify which holds to use is bad enough, but specifying the sequence is akin to saying that by driving your car at a different speed, you are driving on a different road - you're not. If you want some beautiful, untouched boulders, go to the South Bluff Talus field!

Also, I have to question the star system people are using. 4 out of 4 stars means a pristine, perfect problem. Is that really what this is? Or is this more of a 10 foot boulder that has a nice approach and is a fun place to get an outside workout? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to get an objective standard put out there.

1. I have found that it is quite common in bouldering to have several variations on a boulder. Every area I have been to seems to embrace sit-starts and line divergence to make separate quality problems. 2. Devilís Lake is the real deal for bouldering. I have had the opportunity to travel all over the country sampling popular destinations. From my experience Devilís Lake has some of the highest quality problems anywhere, and there is a ton of rock here. I think it is justifiable to have a bouldering guide as thick as the Bible. There are that many great problems or potential problems out there, letís encourage everyone to participate in establishing these lines and keeping them clean. 3. Why not encourage everyone to help with establishing new problems. I see much more good than harm coming from this practice. If the only criticism of adding lines is that a visiting climber may be disappointed, is this really a valid concern? Has this ever happened? Do you really think a climber would be disappointed with the lake? 4. Who is to decide what is a line, a quality line, or a legitimate boulder problem? This is no criticism of Dobbe, I like his problems, but he is guilty of participating in the same practice he is condemning: mountainproject.com/v/press-it..., mountainproject.com/v/two-tick...5. Mountain Project should be a place to add creatively to the climbing resource. Letís embrace this instead of discourage it. Better to put up with a couple of half-ass boulder problems (let the consensus decide this) than dissuade climbers from contributing. 6. I personally really enjoy the variants that are going up at the lake. I live very far from the gym and appreciate all the new routes going up at the lake. Something new goes up every week and I am always psyched to get out. Very rarely have I been disappointed by any routes and I have found that some of my disappointments have been other peoplesí favorites. Whoís to say.

This is an interesting debate. It brings up the question of how to define an actual independent line or a variant, and secondarily, how this information is reported on MP. In my experience the most simplistic solution is that routes with shared holds are variants (aside from those with only the same start holds). This is the standard procedure for bouldering areas of some importance that I have visited in the states/Canada such as Hueco, Yosemite Valley, Joe's Valley, Horse Pens 40, Rock Town, all Colorado front range and western slope bouldering areas, Squammish, etc. Here the ideal underlying theme is to establish lines that follow an aesthetic, obvious, feature up a boulder/cliff with the most efficient, non-contrived and natural sequence. The only prominent/well known exception to this theme is Morrison CO with variants galore (leading to a gym like atmosphere). Overall, the possibilities are limitless if one includes every variant of a route/problem as a new route. In many ways this debate is also a matter of preference for MP organization: comments vs. new route? Possible solution: Perhaps for boulder problems (and maybe routes) MP should have some sort of section for variants (in addition to the comments section). This might clear up the preferences for presentation noted above yet still provide the opportunity to communicate new sequences.

I've been thinking about this for a couple days now. If folks thought it was a good idea I could try to go through and put "(var)" or "Variation" or whatever in the actual problem name here on mp so it would be more obvious which lines are the originals. I am not sure how I feel about that specifically (aside for making busywork for myself), but Flunker's post made me think about at least throwing it out there. That way, at least on the iPhone/Android app, if you were so inclined, you could ignore the problems tagged with "variation".

There is no current mechanism on mp, and I can only imagine it would be a low priority for the site owners, to make a "variant" tab under a problem to click on.